Page 1 of 3 123 LastLast
Results 1 to 30 of 88

Thread: Passive Q&A forum

  1. #1
    Join Date
    Jun 2011
    Posts
    1,211

    Passive Q&A forum

    GR is the best solution we have so far but it has shown to be inconsistent on several occasions:
    - Disagrees with quantum physics
    - Expansion of the universe that is still contradictory (http://futurism.com/universes-expans...e-new-physics/)
    - Dark matter and dark energy that are still unproven
    - ...

    So we all agree we must keep our mind open to alternative ideas and there must be one solution out there, at some point, that is more likely better than GR. Given the degree of difficulty involved in both understanding the mathematical and the physics counterparts, these ideas must be discussed and debated thouroughly. Some ideas will die in the ATM forum itself but some will get even stronger because they aren't completely destroyed. But the real problem is those novel theories will also certainly get rejected in a peer-review process because of their novelty and against the mainstream nature.

    Since it is extremely difficult to discern the right theory then might I suggest:
    - Sorting out the ones that have proven to be the strongest by having survived the harsh ATM debates
    - Discussing them in a passive Q&A forum for 30 days
    - And if members of the board agree then some official CQ certification could be provided to the author
    - The author could then share his work to the scientific community or space agency using the CQ certification in order to prove its validity


    Thank you,
    philippeb8

  2. #2
    Join Date
    Jun 2005
    Posts
    12,941
    I'm sorry but I have a lot of problems with that proposal. The biggest is that CQ is not set up like an organization. In other words, anyone can jump in and join a conversation. So we have nitpickers here who will jump on somebody but don't have much of a background in physics, and people who know a lot but don't really get involved in ATM debates, and there is no qualification at all. I will join in conversations that I'm interested in, but I have no expertise really in physics, just a layperson's interest, and so I don't think there's any reason that anybody should see my certification as important. It would require some kind of an appointed panel of experts, and CQ isn't such a place. It would essentially mean creating an editorial board. And also, I don't know what you mean by "surviving the harsh ATM debates." If a person with an ATM theory seems obviously wrong to others but refuses to concede, is that "surviving"? That's a pretty low hurdle, I'd say. Just because something doesn't get destroyed doesn't necessarily mean it gets stronger. It might, if the author concedes points and goes back to rethink things, but if the person just continues to say the same thing and assert that they are correct, then you just have an intransigent debater with a theory that is not stronger. Again, it would mean having a committee to judge whether the idea is worth certifying. If someone wants to organize that, fine, but it would be a lot of work and wouldn't be me!
    As above, so below

  3. #3
    Join Date
    Jun 2011
    Posts
    1,211
    Quote Originally Posted by Jens View Post
    I'm sorry but I have a lot of problems with that proposal. The biggest is that CQ is not set up like an organization. In other words, anyone can jump in and join a conversation. So we have nitpickers here who will jump on somebody but don't have much of a background in physics, and people who know a lot but don't really get involved in ATM debates, and there is no qualification at all. I will join in conversations that I'm interested in, but I have no expertise really in physics, just a layperson's interest, and so I don't think there's any reason that anybody should see my certification as important. It would require some kind of an appointed panel of experts, and CQ isn't such a place. It would essentially mean creating an editorial board. And also, I don't know what you mean by "surviving the harsh ATM debates." If a person with an ATM theory seems obviously wrong to others but refuses to concede, is that "surviving"? That's a pretty low hurdle, I'd say. Just because something doesn't get destroyed doesn't necessarily mean it gets stronger. It might, if the author concedes points and goes back to rethink things, but if the person just continues to say the same thing and assert that they are correct, then you just have an intransigent debater with a theory that is not stronger. Again, it would mean having a committee to judge whether the idea is worth certifying. If someone wants to organize that, fine, but it would be a lot of work and wouldn't be me!
    Once again, there is a lot of smart people here and those with a PhD in the field could just simply raise their hands if they are willing to participate. A PhD in physics is a PhD in physics worldwide.

    Also if an author cannot explain basic:
    - perihelion precession disparity
    - light bending
    - galactic rotation curve
    - expansion of the universe

    Then his theory should be immediately rejected. It's that simple.

    I am trying to find a solution to this special case that is not currently correctly handled by the scientific community. If anybody has a better idea then I am open to suggestions.

  4. #4
    Join Date
    Sep 2003
    Location
    The beautiful north coast (Ohio)
    Posts
    47,723
    Quote Originally Posted by philippeb8 View Post
    GR is the best solution we have so far but it has shown to be inconsistent on several occasions:
    - Disagrees with quantum physics
    - Expansion of the universe that is still contradictory (http://futurism.com/universes-expans...e-new-physics/)
    - Dark matter and dark energy that are still unproven
    - ...
    Note that this is in my moderator color.

    Do not use Feedback to even hint at promoting your ATM ideas.


    Note the rest of this is in black and is my personal opinion.
    - Discussing them in a passive Q&A forum for 30 days
    I don't know what this means. What is a "passive Q&A forum"? Does that mean it is a free-for-all, that anyone can toss out anything and there is no advocate of an ATM idea. If so, I am very against it.

    And if members of the board agree then some official CQ certification could be provided to the author
    As Jens points out, this is completely and utterly meaningless. There is no such thing, and frankly, no one outside of CQ gives a hoot what gets discussed on CQ. You could have the complete and unanimous blessing of all 168,266 members of CQ, and no journal editor is going to care.
    At night the stars put on a show for free (Carole King)

    All moderation in purple - The rules

  5. #5
    Join Date
    Sep 2003
    Location
    The beautiful north coast (Ohio)
    Posts
    47,723
    Quote Originally Posted by philippeb8 View Post
    I am trying to find a solution to this special case that is not currently correctly handled by the scientific community. If anybody has a better idea then I am open to suggestions.
    To be blunt, I don't think there is any special case that needs a solution. I think the "scientific community" is handling things quite well.
    At night the stars put on a show for free (Carole King)

    All moderation in purple - The rules

  6. #6
    Join Date
    Jun 2011
    Posts
    1,211
    Quote Originally Posted by Swift View Post
    As Jens points out, this is completely and utterly meaningless. There is no such thing, and frankly, no one outside of CQ gives a hoot what gets discussed on CQ. You could have the complete and unanimous blessing of all 168,266 members of CQ, and no journal editor is going to care.
    Ok, then there is no hope for teamwork on this type of problem.

    It looks like I'll have to do everything myself. Thus I will try to meet new NASA people in person next year to renew my list of contacts and I will promote my own theory myself at the same time. My business will help me out by the end of the year also.

    Thank you all for your help in every aspect, I really appreciate!


    Sincerely,
    philippeb8

  7. #7
    Join Date
    Oct 2009
    Location
    a long way away
    Posts
    10,310
    Quote Originally Posted by philippeb8 View Post
    Ok, then there is no hope for teamwork on this type of problem.
    There is no hope for teamwork on CosmoQuest.

    There are plenty of other forums and websites where people discuss their non mainstream ideas and personal theories.

  8. #8
    Join Date
    Jun 2011
    Posts
    1,211
    Quote Originally Posted by Strange View Post
    There are plenty of other forums and websites where people discuss their non mainstream ideas and personal theories.
    There's Natural Philosophy but they have admitted they do not understand my theory either.

    Anyway, thank you all again!

  9. #9
    Join Date
    Jun 2005
    Posts
    12,941
    Quote Originally Posted by philippeb8 View Post
    There's Natural Philosophy but they have admitted they do not understand my theory either.
    Not admitted, they said they did not understand your theory. Because the problem might be that your explanation is not clear enough.


    Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
    As above, so below

  10. #10
    Join Date
    Apr 2011
    Location
    Norfolk UK and some of me is in Northern France
    Posts
    7,843
    My guess is that what you call your theory is an hypothesis. Hopefully it explains all the observations so far and makes a testable prediction. If you cannot make testable prediction your idea is more like an interpretation. Nothing wrong with having a new interpretation but it is a different idea competing for attention with all other interpretations. Hopefully some observations help us choose in which interpretation to believe until the underlying theory is falsified. Calling an hypothesis or an interpretation or an opinion a theory might well put editors and other off your idea. In science theories are high level concepts that make predictions and have so far not been falsified by experiment and observation.
    sicut vis videre esto
    When we realize that patterns don't exist in the universe, they are a template that we hold to the universe to make sense of it, it all makes a lot more sense.
    Originally Posted by Ken G

  11. #11
    Join Date
    Jun 2011
    Posts
    1,211
    Quote Originally Posted by profloater View Post
    My guess is that what you call your theory is an hypothesis. Hopefully it explains all the observations so far and makes a testable prediction. If you cannot make testable prediction your idea is more like an interpretation. Nothing wrong with having a new interpretation but it is a different idea competing for attention with all other interpretations. Hopefully some observations help us choose in which interpretation to believe until the underlying theory is falsified. Calling an hypothesis or an interpretation or an opinion a theory might well put editors and other off your idea. In science theories are high level concepts that make predictions and have so far not been falsified by experiment and observation.
    I canít give hints of my theory here but I can PM you my latest version.


    Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

  12. #12
    Join Date
    Jun 2011
    Posts
    1,211
    Quote Originally Posted by Jens View Post
    Not admitted, they said they did not understand your theory. Because the problem might be that your explanation is not clear enough.


    Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
    Yeah... Iíll need to be there physically and answer Q&As.


    Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

  13. #13
    Join Date
    Aug 2003
    Location
    The Wild West
    Posts
    9,340
    Quote Originally Posted by philippeb8 View Post
    GR is the best solution we have so far but it has shown to be inconsistent on several occasions:
    - Disagrees with quantum physics...
    This is grossly misleading. The difference in these theories is not a matter of simple "disagreement." You need to know something about both of these theories in order to understand the difference, which you apparently don't.

    Quote Originally Posted by philippeb8 View Post
    ....inconsistent on several occasions:- Expansion of the universe that is still contradictory (http://futurism.com/universes-expans...e-new-physics/)
    Really, philippeb8? The futurism.com site you link to says:

    Using data from the Planck mission, one team of researchers concluded that the rate is 67.4 km/s/Mpc (kilometers per second per Mega Parsec). Thatís slower than the currently accepted Hubbleís Constant of 70 km/s/Mpc.
    Again, claiming that the difference in these estimates makes the idea of expansion of the universe "contradictory" is grossly misleading.

    Your claims seem to come from someone with an agenda that has no valid basis of its own, so it has to be based on misleading foundations. Knowledgeable scientists will quickly ignore whatever that agenda is. I think I'd try a different approach.
    Everyone is entitled to his own opinion, but not his own facts.

  14. #14
    Join Date
    Sep 2003
    Location
    The beautiful north coast (Ohio)
    Posts
    47,723
    Quote Originally Posted by Cougar View Post
    This is grossly misleading. The difference in these theories is not a matter of simple "disagreement." You need to know something about both of these theories in order to understand the difference, which you apparently don't.



    Really, philippeb8? The futurism.com site you link to says:



    Again, claiming that the difference in these estimates makes the idea of expansion of the universe "contradictory" is grossly misleading.

    Your claims seem to come from someone with an agenda that has no valid basis of its own, so it has to be based on misleading foundations. Knowledgeable scientists will quickly ignore whatever that agenda is. I think I'd try a different approach.
    Cougar

    I have already warned philippeb8 about bringing up his ATM ideas in this thread. Please do not debate them here.

    All - That's it, no more warning. Any more pro or con debate about ATM ideas in this Feedback thread will earn an infraction.
    At night the stars put on a show for free (Carole King)

    All moderation in purple - The rules

  15. #15
    Join Date
    Oct 2009
    Location
    a long way away
    Posts
    10,310
    Quote Originally Posted by philippeb8 View Post
    There's Natural Philosophy but they have admitted they do not understand my theory either.

    Anyway, thank you all again!
    There are many other forums and websites. Some of the science forums will shut you down instantly, some will let you discuss your idea endlessly. Most will insist on a reasonable level of discussion and civility.

    But why not just create a blog and put it out there. Then if scientists ever go "Of course, that's it!" (*) then they can point to your blog as the place they found the idea and the Nobel Committee can get in touch with you.

    (*) Never gonna happen

  16. #16
    Join Date
    Jun 2011
    Posts
    1,211
    Quote Originally Posted by Strange View Post
    There are many other forums and websites. Some of the science forums will shut you down instantly, some will let you discuss your idea endlessly. Most will insist on a reasonable level of discussion and civility.

    But why not just create a blog and put it out there. Then if scientists ever go "Of course, that's it!" (*) then they can point to your blog as the place they found the idea and the Nobel Committee can get in touch with you.

    (*) Never gonna happen
    Yeah I donít think I can sit there and wait until a scientist knocks on my door.

    Iíll look around very slowly but thanks for your help!


    Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

  17. #17
    Join Date
    Dec 2004
    Location
    UK
    Posts
    8,735
    I personally think it would be good if alternative theories or even small points about mainstream theories, could at least have the capacity to snowball to the extent that scientists outside this forum may pay a little interest.
    Formerly Frog march.

    Newscaster: ... But I've just had a report that a representative of Disaster Area met with the environmentalists this morning and had them all shot, so now nothing stands in the way of the concert going ahead this afternoon on this beautiful sunny day.

  18. #18
    Join Date
    Jun 2011
    Posts
    1,211
    Quote Originally Posted by WaxRubiks View Post
    I personally think it would be good if alternative theories or even small points about mainstream theories, could at least have the capacity to snowball to the extent that scientists outside this forum may pay a little interest.
    Agreed.


    Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

  19. #19
    Join Date
    Oct 2001
    Location
    The Space Coast
    Posts
    4,250
    Quote Originally Posted by WaxRubiks View Post
    I personally think it would be good if alternative theories or even small points about mainstream theories, could at least have the capacity to snowball to the extent that scientists outside this forum may pay a little interest.
    They do, I think. But the question is whether or not they should do so *HERE*. The overall consensus of the admins and mods (and most of the engaged members) is NO. This forum doesn't have to be the be all end all of scientific discussion or speculation.

    CJSF
    "Find a way to show what would happen
    If you were incorrect
    A fact is just a fantasy
    Unless it can be checked
    Make a test
    Test it out"
    -They Might Be Giants, "Put It To The Test"


    lonelybirder.org

  20. #20
    Join Date
    Jun 2011
    Posts
    1,211
    Quote Originally Posted by philippeb8 View Post
    Agreed.


    Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
    Whatever we do we need to work as a team because theoretical physics is no longer a sole scientistís work with a pen and paper given todayís complexity we have to deal with.


    Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

  21. #21
    Join Date
    Oct 2001
    Location
    The Space Coast
    Posts
    4,250
    Who is this "we"? There are teams of scientists working all manner of theories and hypotheses. That's how almost all "science" is done. Earn a PhD and research whatever field you choose, and join a team and theorize to your heart's published content. No one is stopping you, are they? As others have said and alluded to here and elsewhere: I think you grossly overestimate the reach and importance of this online community. We could implode and vanish this very second and the vast majority of the scientific community, including astronomy, wouldn't notice and there would be no lasting ill effects on research.

    CJSF
    "Find a way to show what would happen
    If you were incorrect
    A fact is just a fantasy
    Unless it can be checked
    Make a test
    Test it out"
    -They Might Be Giants, "Put It To The Test"


    lonelybirder.org

  22. #22
    Join Date
    Jun 2011
    Posts
    1,211
    Quote Originally Posted by CJSF View Post
    Who is this "we"? There are teams of scientists working all manner of theories and hypotheses. That's how almost all "science" is done. Earn a PhD and research whatever field you choose, and join a team and theorize to your heart's published content. No one is stopping you, are they? As others have said and alluded to here and elsewhere: I think you grossly overestimate the reach and importance of this online community. We could implode and vanish this very second and the vast majority of the scientific community, including astronomy, wouldn't notice and there would be no lasting ill effects on research.

    CJSF
    Iím not sure why everybody tells me to get a PhD. I didnít get a PhD because I donít believe in a depth-first search type of research when I believe the mainstream is wrong after having finished my freshman classes. I prefer keeping myself wide to all possibilities and hop around if a theory is wrong.


    Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

  23. #23
    Join Date
    Oct 2009
    Location
    a long way away
    Posts
    10,310
    Quote Originally Posted by philippeb8 View Post
    I’m not sure why everybody tells me to get a PhD. I didn’t get a PhD because I don’t believe in a depth-first search type of research when I believe the mainstream is wrong after having finished my freshman classes.
    And that, in a nutshell, is the problem with the "amateur" approach.

    I prefer keeping myself wide to all possibilities and hop around if a theory is wrong.
    Keeping yourself open to all possibilities is part of the scientific method. It is one of the things that makes a good scientist.

  24. #24
    Join Date
    Sep 2003
    Location
    The beautiful north coast (Ohio)
    Posts
    47,723
    Quote Originally Posted by CJSF View Post
    Who is this "we"?
    Agreed. Who is this "we"? This is what I do for fun; if i want serious science I'll get back to work on the statistical analysis I'm in the middle of.
    At night the stars put on a show for free (Carole King)

    All moderation in purple - The rules

  25. #25
    Join Date
    Jun 2011
    Posts
    1,211
    Quote Originally Posted by Strange View Post
    And that, in a nutshell, is the problem with the "amateur" approach.



    Keeping yourself open to all possibilities is part of the scientific method. It is one of the things that makes a good scientist.
    If I make history then I want to be flagged as an amateur because I donít believe in prestige either. But only in credibility.

    Those are my values and I want to be remembered as such if I ever have to.


    Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

  26. #26
    Join Date
    Jun 2011
    Posts
    1,211
    Quote Originally Posted by Swift View Post
    Agreed. Who is this "we"? This is what I do for fun; if i want serious science I'll get back to work on the statistical analysis I'm in the middle of.
    Science in general because I know well scientists work solely or in teams of 4 best case.


    Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

  27. #27
    Join Date
    Sep 2003
    Location
    The beautiful north coast (Ohio)
    Posts
    47,723
    Quote Originally Posted by philippeb8 View Post
    Whatever we do we need to work as a team because theoretical physics is no longer a sole scientistís work with a pen and paper given todayís complexity we have to deal with.
    Quote Originally Posted by philippeb8 View Post
    Iím not sure why everybody tells me to get a PhD. I didnít get a PhD because I donít believe in a depth-first search type of research when I believe the mainstream is wrong after having finished my freshman classes. I prefer keeping myself wide to all possibilities and hop around if a theory is wrong.
    This is going to be blunt, but it sounds like that you were not willing to do enough and learn enough to publish your theory, but now you want everyone else to help you to get it published. You might not believe this, but school isn't about being indoctrinated and brain-washed so that you will comply with the mainstream. School is about learning all the skills to engage in the scientific enterprise; and not just all the physics and math skills, but how to collaborate, how to work in a team, how to publish, how to present talks, how to deal with getting grants and getting positions.

    I don't know any serious scientist who isn't open to possibilities and new ideas. But that is almost the easy part. As has been said before, the hard part isn't the idea, the hard part is turning a pretty picture you have in your head into a model and testing it.

    But another skill that one has to learn is to critically analyze things, most particularly your own. You have to be the most critical of your own ideas.

    As was said in a completely different context: "It's supposed to be hard. If it wasn't hard, everyone would do it. The hard... is what makes it great."
    At night the stars put on a show for free (Carole King)

    All moderation in purple - The rules

  28. #28
    Join Date
    Jun 2011
    Posts
    1,211
    Quote Originally Posted by Swift View Post
    This is going to be blunt, but it sounds like that you were not willing to do enough and learn enough to publish your theory, but now you want everyone else to help you to get it published. You might not believe this, but school isn't about being indoctrinated and brain-washed so that you will comply with the mainstream. School is about learning all the skills to engage in the scientific enterprise; and not just all the physics and math skills, but how to collaborate, how to work in a team, how to publish, how to present talks, how to deal with getting grants and getting positions.

    I don't know any serious scientist who isn't open to possibilities and new ideas. But that is almost the easy part. As has been said before, the hard part isn't the idea, the hard part is turning a pretty picture you have in your head into a model and testing it.

    But another skill that one has to learn is to critically analyze things, most particularly your own. You have to be the most critical of your own ideas.

    As was said in a completely different context: "It's supposed to be hard. If it wasn't hard, everyone would do it. The hard... is what makes it great."
    Being a professor and applying for grants is not easy; my brother is one.

    I know what youíre saying but I think we need to simplify astrophysics because itíll be already very complex at greater scales and new research on particles will be challenging also. I wish I could focus on that myself full time but I have responsibilities unfortunately.


    Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

  29. #29
    Join Date
    Apr 2007
    Location
    Nowhere (middle)
    Posts
    34,898
    Quote Originally Posted by philippeb8 View Post
    I know what you’re saying but I think we need to simplify astrophysics because it’ll be already very complex at greater scales and new research on particles will be challenging also.
    Maybe it's complex because the reality it reflects is complex. It's about a Universe, after all.
    "I'm planning to live forever. So far, that's working perfectly." Steven Wright

  30. #30
    Join Date
    Oct 2001
    Location
    The Space Coast
    Posts
    4,250
    Quote Originally Posted by philippeb8 View Post
    Being a professor and applying for grants is not easy; my brother is one.

    I know what you’re saying but I think we need to simplify astrophysics because it’ll be already very complex at greater scales and new research on particles will be challenging also. I wish I could focus on that myself full time but I have responsibilities unfortunately.


    Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
    This seems to indicate you believe that the field of astrophysics is being made difficult *on purpose*. Ludicrous. Put in the time. Fine, maybe you don't need a PhD to contribute (though for theoretical physics, I am not sure how far you'd get), but you certainly need schooling in the relevant theories and practices before you can start proposing, researching, and getting results for a replacement theory for ... well.. the universe.

    CJSF
    "Find a way to show what would happen
    If you were incorrect
    A fact is just a fantasy
    Unless it can be checked
    Make a test
    Test it out"
    -They Might Be Giants, "Put It To The Test"


    lonelybirder.org

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •